Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Lennon7]

Not watching but the Toksvig soundalike was on Sky too.

It was uncanny. Touch of Anne Robinson too

 

[Adisa]

Her deal will pass.
That deal she came up with is an abomination.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Her deal will pass.
That deal she came up with is an abomination.

Third time lucky

 

[Kentonio]

Third time lucky

Ironic really after all the shit we had to listen to about the EU making countries vote again after they rejected EU policy changes.

 

[rcoobc]

The real question for me, why did the government whip against their amended bill? How would rejecting it have benefited them? Why not just allow the free vote? It makes no sense.

 

[Siorac]

The real question for me, why did the government whip against their amended bill? How would rejecting it have benefited them? Why not just allow the free vote? It makes no sense.

Should be the UK's new official motto.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Just back from choir practice - anything worthwhile happening?

 

[Ekkie Thump]

http://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/2018/1...-50-notification-can-be-unilaterally-revoked/


So no, I'm not mixing it up with anything. They just made it concrete what good faith means.

Edit: besides, the UK would never actually do it anyway. It would absolutely destroy any international credibility the country had, as well as making a No Deal exit certain - why would the EU even attempt to negotiate after this?

That seems to indicate that there is no 'good faith' component to the ECJ ruling.

What I'm thinking is that if May's deal fails a third time and she goes back to the EU seeking an extension only for someone like Italy to reject it then that doesn't necessarily mean we're out of options. I'm not a massive fan of the idea or anything but as a backs to the wall thing it seems a legally viable method of extending the current purgatory.

 

[711]

Presumably one or two of the countries might try to leverage their veto for some other purpose. But once the big players back it, I would imagine everyone will fall in line. The 27 have been very united (until now) on Brexit.

Yes they have been united, that's true. To be honest the question from @afrocentricity threw me somewhat as it's mostly just the impression I've got from several commentators, that the EU are irritated by us now, and want Brexit concluded whatever happens. I concede they could accept an extension, but there would have to be a very good reason. A binding referendum is the only one I can think of.

 

[Siorac]

That seems to indicate that there is no 'good faith' component to the ECJ ruling.

What I'm thinking is that if May's deal fails a third time and she goes back to the EU seeking an extension only for someone like Italy to reject it then that doesn't necessarily mean we're out of options. I'm not a massive fan of the idea or anything but as a backs to the wall thing it seems a legally viable method of extending the current purgatory.

I shouldn't have used the phrase 'good faith', true, because the ruling doesn't either. But it does explicitly say that the purpose of revocation must be the confirmation of EU membership.

And as I said, even if it were technically an option, it would only mean two more years to prepare for no deal.

 

[Kentonio]

The real question for me, why did the government whip against their amended bill? How would rejecting it have benefited them? Why not just allow the free vote? It makes no sense.

Hope this helps..

 

[NinjaFletch]

http://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/2018/1...-50-notification-can-be-unilaterally-revoked/


So no, I'm not mixing it up with anything.

No, you're right, you're not.

You've just misunderstood what that website is saying.

That's quoting paragraph 148 of the opinion of the Advocate General in a paragraph entitled. 'The judgment departs from the Opinion of the Advocate General in three respects.' That is here:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1295347

A good faith requirement is being mentioned specifically as one of the three points that the judgement differs from the Opinion that the Advocate General gave, as your own quote actually says: ' The judgment does not confirm any such further substantive conditions.'

And I quoted you the judgement in full above. It very clearly states '[A member state can] revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing'. A good faith requirement would be a condition.

Here is the judgement, btw:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...x=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1

 

[Siorac]

No, you're right, you're not.

You've just misunderstood what that website is saying.

That's quoting paragraph 148 of the opinion of the Advocate General in a paragraph entitled. 'The judgment departs from the Opinion of the Advocate General in three respects.' That is here:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1295347

A good faith requirement is being mentioned specifically as one of the three points that the judgement differs from the Opinion that the Advocate General gave, as your own quote actually says: ' The judgment does not confirm any such further substantive conditions.'

And I quoted you the judgement in full above. It very clearly states '[A member state can] revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing'. A good faith requirement would be a condition.

Here is the judgement, btw:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...x=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1

This is the important part:

notification of revocation must be ‘unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned’

And I repeat, this sort of feckery would do serious damage to the UK's reputation and credibility without achieving anything.

 

[RedChip]

Yes they have been united, that's true. To be honest the question from @afrocentricity threw me somewhat as it's mostly just the impression I've got from several commentators, that the EU are irritated by us now, and want Brexit concluded whatever happens. I concede they could accept an extension, but there would have to be a very good reason. A binding referendum is the only one I can think of.

Yeah, they are irritated for sure and it will have to be a legitimate reason for them to agree to extend, but I think they will act as one.

 

[Kentonio]

No, you're right, you're not.

You've just misunderstood what that website is saying.

That's quoting paragraph 148 of the opinion of the Advocate General in a paragraph entitled. 'The judgment departs from the Opinion of the Advocate General in three respects.' That is here:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1295347

A good faith requirement is being mentioned specifically as one of the three points that the judgement differs from the Opinion that the Advocate General gave, as your own quote actually says: ' The judgment does not confirm any such further substantive conditions.'

And I quoted you the judgement in full above. It very clearly states '[A member state can] revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing'. A good faith requirement would be a condition.

Here is the judgement, btw:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...x=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1

True, but you’d have to expect any abuse of it to cause huge international condemnation, and lack of trust towards the UK. The EU would almost certainly also change the rules very quickly, which wouldn’t stop us dropping out again, but which would prevent it happening repeatedly. Most importantly of all, it would absolutely destroy any remaining goodwill on the side on the 27, and ensure any future real negotiations were punishing in the extreme.

 

[rcoobc]

Hope this helps..

Who's in charge

 

[Mr Pigeon]

But what way is that? It's still not clear what it is that the UK actually wants.

Oh, it's simple Siorac. Very simple;

- No immigrants but freedom for us to go wherever we want without any disruptions
- No pennies given to the EU for membership but maintain access to the single market on our own terms and stay as the financial hub for European banks
- No high export tarrifs for UK goods/services being sold in the EU but we get to increase the tarrifs on stuff coming in
- No pesky human rights charter, or any legislation that prohibits Tory donors from doing whatever the feck they want

Basically we're going to stop giving our fair share of the ingredients but insisting that the EU give us the first slice of the cake. And then we also want the rest of the cake.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, I'm not sure what was so confusing about it, Siorac. Now if you'll excuse me, the wardens have come to take me back to my cell brlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrl.

 

[afrocentricity]

Yeah, they are irritated for sure and it will have to be a legitimate reason for them to agree to extend, but I think they will act as one.

I would hope so... This is all depending on our government acting in good faith though, which I'm not so sure about anymore.

 

[Siorac]

Oh, it's simple Siorac. Very simple;

- No immigrants but freedom for us to go wherever we want without any disruptions
- No pennies given to the EU for membership but maintain access to the single market on our own terms and stay as the financial hub for European banks
- No high export tarrifs being sold in the EU for stuff we make but we get to increase the tarrifs on stuff coming in
- No pesky human rights charter, or any legislation that prohibits Tory donors from doing whatever the feck they want

Basically we're going to stop giving our fair share of the ingredients but insisting that the EU give us the first slice of the cake. And then we also want the rest of the cake.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, I'm not sure what was so confusing about it, Siorac. Now if you'll excuse me, the wardens have come to take me back to my cell brlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrlrl.

all clear now, thanks! You should have been the chief negotiator.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

After reading it all, nothing has actually changed.

 

[sullydnl]

After reading it all, nothing has actually changed.

Not really. The government just decided to unnecessarily punch themselves in the face for a bit, as is their wont.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Not beyond the realm of possibility tonight, tbh.

 

[NinjaFletch]

This is the important part:

notification of revocation must be ‘unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned’

And I repeat, this sort of feckery would do serious damage to the UK's reputation and credibility without achieving anything.

Right, but that's not a good faith requirement, nor does it bind a member state's future actions for reasons set out in the summary of the judgement. There's nothing stopping a member state revoking their notification to leave and then going 'whoops, our bad, didn't mean to do that' the next day and notifying again, you just couldn't explicitly state that that was what you were doing in your notice of revocation. It's a technical possibility, which is what I said.

But yeah, I agree, it's not a remotely plausible course of action for a million and one reasons, but then again, we are talking about a government that seems to fail to understand that international treaties work on mutual trust and respect.

 

[rcoobc]

What needs to (and what I think will) happen:-

Parliament needs to work out what it wants (ie. Norway +)
Another meaningful vote. Amendment tacking on "the plan (Norway +)
Parliament accepts Theresa May's deal with the understanding that we aim for the plan (Norway +)
Ask for a short delay to Article 50 just to sort out everything.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Not really. The government just decided to unnecessarily punch themselves in the face for a bit, as is their wont.

Are Brexiters actually sure they really want sovereignty of their parliament.

 

[JPRouve]

No, you're right, you're not.

You've just misunderstood what that website is saying.

That's quoting paragraph 148 of the opinion of the Advocate General in a paragraph entitled. 'The judgment departs from the Opinion of the Advocate General in three respects.' That is here:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1295347

A good faith requirement is being mentioned specifically as one of the three points that the judgement differs from the Opinion that the Advocate General gave, as your own quote actually says: ' The judgment does not confirm any such further substantive conditions.'

And I quoted you the judgement in full above. It very clearly states '[A member state can] revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing'. A good faith requirement would be a condition.

Here is the judgement, btw:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...x=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1

Here you have the actual answer:

154. As regards the tactical revocations, mentioned by the Commission and the Council, there are two reasons why I do not attach the same importance to such revocations as those institutions.

155. The first reason is that there is nothing in the question referred – which is the only question that the Court of Justice has to answer – to suggest the misuse (in the sense of a misuse of powers, as a ground of invalidity of an act adopted by a public authority, referred to in Article 263 TFEU) of the power to revoke the initial decision. Moreover, any abuse could occur only when a second notification of the intention to withdraw is submitted, but not by unilaterally revoking the first.

156. The other reason is that it appears to me that, in practice, it would be extremely difficult for tactical revocations to proliferate, undermining a possibility which undoubtedly has serious consequences. The revocation is a decision that the departing Member State has had to adopt in accordance with its constitutional requirements. Since it entails the reversal of a previous decision of a constitutional nature, the change would require an alteration of the governing majority, the holding of a referendum, a ruling by the highest court of the country annulling the withdrawal decision or some other action that would be difficult to implement and would require the use of protracted and complex legal procedures. The obligation that a revocation must be carried out in accordance with the Member State’s constitutional requirements is thus a filter which acts as a deterrent in order to prevent the abuse of the withdrawal procedure laid down in Article 50 TEU through such tactical revocations.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Here you have the actual answer:

You're quoting the opinion of the advocate general again, not the judgement.

 

[Siorac]

Right, but that's not a good faith requirement, nor does it bind a member state's future actions for reasons set out in the summary of the judgement. There's nothing stopping a member state revoking their notification to leave and then going 'whoops, our bad, didn't mean to do that' the next day and notifying again, you just couldn't explicitly state that that was what you were doing in your notice of revocation. It's a technical possibility, which is what I said.

But yeah, I agree, it's not a remotely plausible course of action for a million and one reasons, but then again, we are talking about a government that seems to fail to understand that international treaties work on mutual trust and respect.

Yeah I guess you're right, as long as the notification itself is unequivocal and doesn't even hint at the true intentions.

Surely even this government wouldn't do this though? Surely...?

 

[Mr Pigeon]

all clear now, thanks! You should have been the chief negotiator.

That's the problem. I was.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Yeah I guess you're right, as long as the notification itself is unequivocal and doesn't even hint at the true intentions.

Surely even this government wouldn't do this though? Surely...?

Say the UK wants an extention to article 50 in order to have a second referendum but one of the 27 members refuses for some reason or another. In such a circumstance the majority of the EU might be sympathetic to the UK's cause but rules make it clear there's nothing they can do. UK then still has the ability to revoke article 50, hold indyref 2 and retains the right to invoke article 50 again after the result.

 

[Siorac]

Say the UK wants an extention to article 50 in order to have a second referendum but one of the 27 members refuses for some reason or another. In such a circumstance the majority of the EU might be sympathetic to the UK's cause but rules make it clear there's nothing they can do. UK then still has the ability to revoke article 50, hold indyref 2 and retains the right to invoke article 50 again after the result.

Yes but in that case the EU should stand by the member states that actually wish to stay and not do this farce all over again. If they revoke and then trigger A50 again, there should be no negotiations.

 

[JPRouve]

You're quoting the opinion of the advocate general again, not the judgement.

Which is the actual answer. The court didn't answer it because it wasn't the question, the advocate general answered it in his opinion by explaining why it wasn't relevant.

 

[Stanley Road]

Say the UK wants an extention to article 50 in order to have a second referendum but one of the 27 members refuses for some reason or another. In such a circumstance the majority of the EU might be sympathetic to the UK's cause but rules make it clear there's nothing they can do. UK then still has the ability to revoke article 50, hold indyref 2 and retains the right to invoke article 50 again after the result.

That 1 country gets a phone call from Germany and its miraculously unanimous.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Yes but in that case the EU should stand by the member states that actually wish to stay and not do this farce all over again. If they revoke and then trigger A50 again, there should be no negotiations.

I entirely agree with you there.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

There's a British/Dutch journo called Simon Kuper who writes some really good stuff on football for some Dutch magazines. Not sure if he's rated in England as well where he seems to be writing for the Financial Times, but one of his Brexit articles from 2016 got republished in Dutch recently and it sums up things quite well I thought (though presumably you guys are very much aware of this already of course and it might've been discussed countles of times so it could be just a pointless addition to this thread).

Still funny to see how that type elitism and fooling of the masses seems to work the same everywhere. He went to school with a whole load of Brexit figureheads:

https://www.ft.com/content/f4dedd92-43c7-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d

Brexit: a coup by one set of public schoolboys against another


"I went to university with both sets, and with hindsight I watched Brexit in the making. When I arrived at Oxford in 1988, David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove had just left the place. George Osborne and the future Brexiters Jacob Rees-Mogg and Daniel Hannan were all contemporaries of mine. I wasn’t close to them, because politically minded public schoolboys inhabited their own Oxford bubble. They had clubs like the Bullingdon that we middle-class twerps had never even heard of.

Their favourite hang-out was the Oxford Union, a kind of children’s parliament that organises witty debates. A sample topic: “That sex is good . . . but success is better”, in 1978, with Theresa May speaking against the motion. May is now running for Tory leader without the usual intermediate step of having been Union president, though her husband Philip, Gove and Johnson did all hold that post. (Beautifully, Gove campaigned for Johnson’s election in 1986.)

"The public schoolboys spent decades trying to get British voters angry about the EU. But as Gove admitted to me in 2005, ordinary voters never took much interest. Perhaps they didn’t care whether they were ruled by a faraway elite in Brussels or ditto in Westminster. And so the public schoolboys focused the Brexit campaign on an issue many ordinary Britons do care about: immigration. To people like Johnson, the campaign was an Oxford Union debate writ large."

And this in a nutshell is everything wrong with Britain. Being ruled by elite arseholes who think the country and its population are their own personal fiefdoms and the people just serfs to be manipulated, and just as bad the servile spineless wankers who keep electing them

 

[Mr Pigeon]

UK: I'm hungry.
EU: OK, I'm making pizza. Do you want some?
UK: No.
EU: Beans on toast?
UK: No.
EU: That's all I've got.
UK: Well...I want pasta.
EU: Oh, actually I have some of that too...
UK: Not that kind. Other kind.
EU: Well, take your pick because that's all I've got.
UK: Bye then...

Later that day, back home...

UK: Get me pasta.
May: Ok, here.
UK: Don't want that pasta, want other pasta.
May: Oh, well give me a minute.
UK: Hurry up...
May: Here...
UK: Looks at bowl Ew, no.
May: WHAT DO YOU WANT?!?!
UK: Chips.
May: Curly fries or chunky chips?
UK: Yes.
May: Which one?
UK: No.
May: shoots self

The Great British Empire now consists of two blokes arguing in a pub over which way to properly push open a door that says "Pull".

 

[sun_tzu]

About sums it up

Pretty shambolic

 

[diarm]

The world is laughing at us.

We were laughing two years ago but at this stage it's getting uncomfortable to watch. Like a car crash everyone slows down to gawk at but then wishes they hadn't.

 

[Drifter]

What happens next?


Under plans outlined by Theresa May last week, MPs will now be asked to vote to approve a “short, limited extension to article 50”.

Tonight, the Government confirmed that's what they intend to do tomorrow - along with details of what MPs will have to vote on.


How long would the extension be?

If MPs vote in favour of tomorrow’s motion, they’re voting to:

Delay Brexit no matter what AND

a) if there's a deal by this time next week, the delay will be three months (a technical extension).

OR

b) if there's not a deal by this time next week, the govt has no view on length of delay and says it's up to the EU.

Either way, unless we leave by June 30, we'll have to take part in EU elections.


And Jean Claude-Juncker said yesterday that he wouldn't approve any delay beyond May 23, when the elections start.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Which is the actual answer. The court didn't answer it because it wasn't the question, the advocate general answered it in his opinion by explaining why it wasn't relevant.

Ah, I wasn't sure by the tone of your reply what you actually meant, but, yes, agreed – I don't accept the author of that piece's interpretation that that was a point of difference.